By Speedy Scott, globalmicroscope@gmail.com
Overview. This month--April 2014--Dr. Jameson, Principal of RSM Intermediate, stated his administrative policy: "...it [is] impossible to set criteria for restricting use [of media] based upon age alone." As you might imagine, the publication of this policy has inspired strong opinions among community members, not to mention urgent questions:
- Is Principal Jameson's statement consistent with California law?
- Is it right for our kids?
Recap. To assist in answering these questions, a brief sample of the RSM materials assigned or shown in history class is detailed below. The ages of the children involved are generally 12 to 13.
1. Pornography, Horror / Michael Crichton's Timeline:
"He was imprisoned and killed. His captors didn't want any sign of foul play, so they stuck a tube up his rectum and inserted a red-hot poker into his bowels until he died.'
Low-resolution image from Wikipedia thought to
qualify as "fair use" under US copyright law for
non-profit book identification purposes.
Kate shivered.
'He was also gay,' Marek whispered, 'so it was thought the manner of his execution demonstrated great wit,'" (p.210, 48%).
2. Horror / Michael Crichton's Timeline:
"While they waited, Chris felt something drip on his shoulder. Looking up, he saw a man hanging directly above him, twisting slowly on a rope. Urine dribbled down his leg. Chris stepped away from the wall and saw half a dozen bodies, hands tied behind their backs, hanging from ropes tied to the second-floor balustrade," (p. 343, 77%).
3. Torture / Barbarians--The Mongols, a History Channel production:
Audio voiceover: "A special fate is assigned to the greedy governor; dragged from his hiding place in the citadel, he is held down as molten silver is poured into his ears and his eyes."
Visual/audio: A man is shown being carried, tied to a stick. He is then set down on the ground, and held down by a group. The camera pans to a dipper of molten metal, which begins to pour. The audience hears blood-curdling screams. (Clicking the title, above, will take you to the film on YouTube.)
A community reacts. When children experience disturbing events, it can be difficult to discuss. Even parents of children in middle school are often isolated, with little ability to reach out to other parents and ask, "Am I the only one concerned about this?" For that reason, I have copied a representative sample of Face Book comments to the April 21st article, below:
1. KKB: "Oh my gosh. I lack the words for a response."
2. SKW: "Wow...I'm disappointed."
3. ALC: "With the availability of vast amounts of reading material it seems like more than two books could/should have been listed for honors approval. Deciding between bad and worse seems unnecessary."
3. MM: "Wow...unbelievable. And I thought LAUSD was the "careless" district:-/
4. TR: "I want to defend RSM a little bit by saying that my daughter had two great years there with no experience like this..."
5. HL: "I use an app called 'kids media' to get ratings on everything from apps to books to video games. It gives very detailed information about themes and specific words. The age appropriate scale slides up to 17. It's interesting that the book in question "Timeline" doesn't have a rating listed under books. Must be too mature.
6. DA (Teacher): "Such a complex topic. I think adults often assume that because a child can read at a high school level, that allows us the freedom of letting kids read "whatever". Just like parents, teachers do need to think about the content and whether or not it is something a child can emotionally handle, regardless of their reading ability. That being said, I continue being amazed at parents who let their five year old read Harry Potter or their 3rd grader read Twilight [just] because they can.
7. DC (Former teacher): "The teacher/school clearly went against the state dept. of ed. recommendations. A complaint would not be out of order..."
8. DK (Former School Board Director): "Wow - thanks for sharing!! When I served on the school board, it was so disappointing the other Directors would not take home the novels we were being asked to approve, and review them! Unfortunately, the other Directors bought into the belief it was micromanaging and second guessing the administration and the Curriculum Instruction Material Committee, making me a lone voter against many novels!"
9. DC: Just want to input, that at 18, I went and checked out every single censored from High School curriculum book, in the mid and late 70s and read them. And where possible, I read them before I graduated, when I could buy them. With my parent's permission. I was not harmed in the least, I don't think. I do agree with respecting parental prerogatives, and would support the assigning of any book known to be controversial, to require parental permission. My strict and observant Catholic parents, never censored anything in literature, but some strident conversations did come about, and were good. I never censored my children, and I have raised independent thinkers and am so proud of this. Truly, it gives me great satisfaction to have well informed, and exposed to children. But as said, I would bow to parental prerogative.
10. DK (Former School Board Director): ...this is not about banning books or censorship, and those trying to portray it as such, are merely trying to refocus the conversation. One only has to read this part to understand it's clearly inappropriate - "His captors didn't want any sign of foul play..." Parents should be in arms, and not just for their own children, but do you really want your child's fellow students reading that such behavior is viewed as "great wit"?
11. DC: Hopefully most parents would say no on a permission slip. Any controversial book, video, activity, should be deferred to parental decisions...I have no problem with parental permission being required. I do have a problem with censorship. Censorship is a parental prerogative. Parenting choices respected. And no, I would not want my children's classmates to read such ugly spew..."
So...What are we going to do? Written letters of complaint have been sent to the Principal of RSM Intermediate, the Superintendent, and all members of the School Board. The only response received to date is the one from Principal Jameson, in which he states age guidelines are "impossible." In order to protect our children, however, it may first be necessary to examine state and federal laws as they pertain to children and teachers:
California Penal Code, Section 313-313.5, covering the fines and jail time associated with showing harmful materials to minors. The issue hinges upon several factors, including:
(1) Intended audience. According to the CA Board of Education, Crichton's Timeline was written for a mature audience. State recommendations on the use of cable movies in the classroom have not yet been located, but The History Channel production was probably produced for the entertainment purposes of individual, paying customers.
(2) Contribution to education. Unlike anatomical drawings shown in health class, both forms of media contain fictional or dramatic elements that range from fantasy to unsupported conjecture. Some of the information was obtained from academic sources--but both author and producer intended the transition from fact to fiction to be seamless. In the context of a 7th grade history class, it is difficult to argue that presenting fiction as fact is educational.
(3) Intent. The exact intent is not known, but it is quite possible--even likely--that the two history teachers intended nothing more than to use popular media to inspire student interest in history. Plus, commercial profit was definitely not an issue. Other possibilities are quite awful, however, and impossible to confirm or deny without more information. If it weren't for the Principal's message (reprinted in the previous blog; family names have been changed to protect the identity of a minor), it would likely not have entered the community discussion. Here's why:
Conflict of interest. All honors classes are known to be "weed-out" classes. According to the presentations of teachers at Back to School Night, students must do much more than make good grades. If their level of participation is viewed as insufficient, they will not receive permission to continue honors-level work the following year. In this atmosphere, students and parents are much less likely to protest inappropriate material, fearing their children will be judged too immature to continue the honors program.
Subjective evaluation. Since honors students are are already being evaluated subjectively, the next question is whether or not shocking, violent, sexual media is being used to further cull the honors-student population. Given the administration's position on the topic, parents are wondering if the ultimate intent of the school is to foster voluntary drop-outs.
Another possibility is that disturbing, adult materials are being used as a rite of initiation. If any group is being humiliated or embarrassed because they show aversion to torture and pornography in class--even 7th graders in general--then hazing may be an additional issue to consider.
Author's note (May 1st): A group discussion on Timeline is still scheduled to take place in the classroom, at a future date.
More information on how the State of California defines "harmful materials" can be found here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=313-313.5
Information on hazing can be found here:
National Federation of State High School Associations:
According to the NFHS:
1. The definition of hazing: "The Federation defines hazing as any humiliating or dangerous activity expected of a student to belong to a group, regardless of their willingness to participate." (Author's note: emphasis on humiliating.)
2. Connection between bullying and hazing: "In many respects, hazing is similar to bullying, but hazing has the tendency to be institutionalized form of harassment/intimidation centering on initiation rights connected to certain school clubs and activities. Hazing can be seen as an organized form of bullying. One difference between these behaviors is that bullying typically attempts to exclude a person from the bully's activities while hazing is often a condition of acceptance or initiation into a group."
Thank you for your time. Please note that this article was not posted by a lawyer--just a concerned parent and member of the RSM Intermediate STPO, working to inform our community about matters we care about most.
~Speedy Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment